Canon Germany addresses recent Viltrox RF mount lens demands, and it’s a case of patent infrigement

[Johnw]

there's clearly a point above which companies can be deemed to have monopoly power and arguably Canon is above it.

Oh really? Could you present me a cogent, succinct, logical argument explaining why that is? I haven’t heard one yet.

 

[Kit.]

Guess people that buy expensive camera's today will do some research beforehand. If they can't afford the RF lenses, they will just go to Sony, Nikon, etc were 3rd party lenses are available. So Canon might be sacrificing market share in the long run and still go bankrupt...

Everyone can go bankrupt. However, if the profit margins on this market are in the lenses, those who open their body mounts to 3rd party lens manufacturers are more likely to go bankrupt.

Sony is no exception here (saying this as an ex-owner of a Vaio laptop).

 

[Blue Zurich]

yawn

 

[Kit.]

Were you buying software prior to the Apple App Store that was established in 2008?

Yes. For example, VueScan in around 2000.

Prior to that year software distribution was primary through physical disks like CDs, DVDs and floppies.

Or downloads from the manufacturer's website.

Like, you know, you are getting the opensource software now.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Freakin' hell, we already went through this with the R5 overheating fanboy emotive denial bulls**t not too long ago, and here we are, once again...

“Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.”
― George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones

As I've been saying the last few weeks, while having random ad hominem attacks thrown at me, the landscape is changing in the world of photography, and the companies are having to change their business strategies.

Canon has potentially done a bait and switch, which has caught people off guard, hence the various reactions we've been seeing here.

Going from EF to RF, anyone would assume would be much the same, where third parties exist, a somewhat open system, as it's been in the past. If Canon has decided to run a closed system at some point, without telling the market that's their intention, then it's not surprising that some people will feel caught out if that's the case, and Canon really do go that way.


Canon's bad press is gathering momentum, much like the fake overheating timer debacle did, and they might act on it, or not. They may license their mount to third parties, or not. It may have been their intention to sell licences from the start, or not.

So what to do now? The solution is quite simple.

If people only buy native Canon lenses, and are potentially happy to be part of a closed camera ecosystem, and accept whatever Canon throws out to them (at whatever price Canon chooses), then none of this matters at all, they can keep buying to their heart's content!

If people don't like the idea of a closed system, and want the choice of third party lenses (which may or may not come), or are simply tiring of Canon's penny-pinching shenanigans, then they should just postpone buying any more Canon gear (unless they really need it) until Canon indicates their business direction, allowing the buyers to make a properly informed decision about whether they want to outlay any more money on the RF ecosystem or not.

Using adapted EF lenses is only a stop-gap measure, which becomes less viable as time progresses, because of factors such as cessation of production, eventual lack of parts for repair, increased size/weight and inconvenience of using an adapter, inability to utilise all the benefits of the RF platform. There's also the biggest psychological hurdle for all the gear heads (who emotionally identify with having the 'best gear', whatever the heck that nebulous, irrational idea means, and get defensive at genuine criticisms of said gear because they personalise it as a criticism of themselves and their choice of 'the best'), they would be buying 'yesterday's technology', which probably doesn't matter functionally, but does to them on an emotional level!

Welcome to the brave new world, where there is always the option to buy Sony lol!

 

[LogicExtremist]

yawn

Time for bed then!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Don't mind him. He's using online forums to vomit out his bedside manner. He cannot exactly do that to his patients or else no one would pay for his services.

Lol. I don’t have an medical degree, nor do I see patients. I just have no compunction about ridiculing people who make ridiculous comments.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Well, if you don’t like facts and data feel free to ignore my posts. if your understanding of those things is at the same level as your emotional maturity, that’s probably for the best because you won’t understand them anyway.

I think that it's the sprinkling of the occasional ad hominem attacks amongst the facts you provide (when you get frustrated with people or have had a bad day at work) that get's people a bit off side lol!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Welcome to the brave new world, where there is always the option to buy Sony lol!

A world in which nearly twice as many people continue to buy Canon instead of Sony.

At least, that’s what’s happening in the real world. Many people on this forum can’t seem to grasp reality, and prefer to live in their own personal fantasy world where it’s much easier to be right.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think that it's the sprinkling of the occasional ad hominem attacks amongst the facts you provide (when you get frustrated with people or have had a bad day at work) that get's people a bit off side lol!

Lol. As I said, ridiculous statements engender ridicule, and I’d add that asinine statements make people who make them look like asses.

FWIW, my last bad day at work was probably over a decade ago. I am truly fortunate that I really enjoy what I do for a living, and even more so that I am well compensated for it.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Next month I will likely visit Germany's largest remaining photo fair "Photopia" (unfortunately Photokina is dead) and there Canon, Sigma and Tamron will all show their latest glass. I will ask the Tamron and Sigma people why there is not third party RF glass yet.

Honestly, what answer do you expect? There is no statement from Sigma itself and their CEO´s probably told everybody to shut the ****** until they've figured things out on their own or successfully negotiate with Canon. So, you won't get an answer that you can count on.

Furthermore, I visited the photokina in 2019 and the Sigma hostesses (or workers) did not know squad about their lenses. They had the Sigma 200-500mm F2.8 EX DG on display and when asked by someone (not me) why it's so expensive the first hostess said: "well, it's very big, bigger than most lenses" The second one, which the asking visitor called over, said: "I think it works in the dark, but I´m not sure".

So, I am looking forward to what response you'll get. Unfortunately, I can't go myself (would love though).

 

[josephandrews222]

Ef mount was introduced on 1987 and first sigma lens for that mount was introduced on 2000. I think I would asked them about relevance of such timeframe for the rf mount.

Past is (often) prologue.

No snark directed at UlfricStormcloak here...is your post true?

I assume it is...and perhaps serves as an example to be considered.

What about Tamron? Or the other major lens manufacturers? I guess its off to wiki for me...my guess is that others who post here are well aware of what I'm only guessing at.

In the other thread I noted that there is exactly one third-party auto-focus zoom EF-M lens (a Tamron, released in 2014).

Many who post here moaned for years about the lack of EF-M lenses (third party or otherwise).

How did that work out for Canon?!

Interesting stuff.

 

[LogicExtremist]

A world in which nearly twice as many people continue to buy Canon instead of Sony.

At least, that’s what’s happening in the real world. Many people on this forum can’t seem to grasp reality, and prefer to live in their own personal fantasy world where it’s much easier to be right.

Yes, but which people? The ones who have been buying Rebel APSCs and M50s? The formerly large market that depends on high sales volumes of lower margin products, in a climate where that market is shrinking? The younger generations which comprise many of the new buyers are moving to smartphones, causing the camera market to shrink further. Canon has mentioned placing its focus on its higher tiers of gear. The big spender pro-am sector, which probably constitutes the bulk of the demographic on forums buys full-frame mirrorless, the sector of the market which Sony dominates and has dominated in the past.

As you're rightly pointed out on many occasions, we forumites are a minority of the market, but if the lower end of the market which made up the bulk of Canon's sales (but not profits/item) is eroding away, who will become Canon's key demographic? The market is shifting quickly, and the old ways Canon depended on are gradually disappearing. Sony is already killing it with the growing vlogger market, as many more young people get into video rather than stills photography. Sony they have theZV-E10 and ZV-1 which have likely displaced the older Canon M50, which displaced the older Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark III and II before it. We're in the midst of change, and as they say in the corporate world, it's a case of 'change or die'. The security of the DSLR boom is long gone. We live in interesting times.

 

[bbasiaga]

That's how AT&T worked in the US, if you'll recall. Until 1987 or whenever you couldn't hook up a phone or answering machine from any other company. You had to buy EVERYTHING from AT&T.

AT&T got broken up by the US govt and good thing too.

AT&T had more monopoly power than Canon does, I'll grant, but there's clearly a point above which companies can be deemed to have monopoly power and arguably Canon is above it.

And you'll note my proposed change to the status quo wouldn't actually be costing Canon a single lens sale, as it only applies to lenses they do not make and which no-one could buy from them.

I'm not sure what monopoly law is anywhere else, but Canon is FAR from a monopoly in the camera market by US standards. For your photographic of video needs, you can buy Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Red...the list goes on.

Having control over your intellectual property on designs you created and own (i.e. the RF mount) does not make a monopoly. Canon cannot use their 'power' to gatekeep other companies in to or out of the market as a whole. They can only use patents they hold to manage their own ecosystem. You may not like it, but that's nowhere close to a monopoly.

-Brian

 

[JoseB]

Tangent to the topic:
Did Nikon licenced "Z mount" to Putin?

 

[LogicExtremist]

Lol. As I said, ridiculous statements engender ridicule, and I’d add that asinine statements make people who make them look like asses.

FWIW, my last bad day at work was probably over a decade ago. I am truly fortunate that I really enjoy what I do for a living, and even more so that I am well compensated for it.

I'm glad to hear you enjoy your work, that something not many people have, it's usually quite the opposite. Great too that it pays well, considering your impressive collection of photography gear!

 

[LogicExtremist]

Tangent to the topic:
Did Nikon licenced Z mount to Putin?

To spite the US for nuking them in WWII?

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Actually the closed App Store of Apple is the main reason why I would never buy an iPhone and other people should neither. Android allows you to install .apk files from any source. The problem with Apple is censorship. For example we have a very evil newspaper in Germany called "Bild". It is only read by very dumb people, but that is another topic. Until a few years ago, "Bild" always had a topless woman on the cover and that woman also appeared on the start page of the app. Apple is is from the US and topless women seem to be a problem there - unlike machine guns or hate speech. Apple threatened "Bild" to get rid of the topless women in the app. Otherwise the "Bild"app would have been banned from the app store. So an American company prevents German citizens from downloading an app because of some strange American moral standards. Apple also banned an app that made fun of Jesus, which is not a problem in Germany either. Here in Germany "Die Hard" was on TV on Good Friday every year for many years, but Apple prevents us from installing apps that make fun of Jesus. There are more examples like that. Apple treats people like kids. Everybody should decide on his own what he wants to install on his phone, because he owns it.

With cameras it is similar. If YOU bought the camera, the camera manufacturer should not be able to prevent you from using third party lenses.

We had a very spectacular court decision about OEM software a long time ago, that basically ended all OEM ristrictions in Germany. As a result, we can now buy full versions of Microsoft Windows or Office (even Professional versions) for very little money, because companies who bought licences on bulk, can now trade the ones they do not need. Fpr Windows 10 Professional I paid about 25 Euros and for Office 2016 Professional I paid 15 Euros or so. That is only a tiny fractions of the official retail price and still those are valid licenses due to the strong consumer protection in Germany and often the whole EU.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

And what if Canon brings cases against third parties on EF too?

They haven't in the past, why start now? Furthermore, possible patents are probably outdated now. And if the EF third party glass was reverse engineered the don't even have a case.

What if Sony and Nikon follow in Canon's footsteps?

Please oh please tell me, how Sony should do that? They would have to implement an entire new algorithm/ protocol, bring out new firmware for every camera and every lens model ever released and probably put lots of research to put their AF back on the number one spot. Furthermore, they have make to they are not breaking initials agreements/ contracts. Although the "price" was symbolic for other companies to join.
Sony chose to let others participate and therefore help building the e-mount. But doing so they sacrificed future revenues in order to become a major player in the camera industry. There is no going back on this decision. Also, Canon does not need to this because they are a major player! How do people still not get that after what feels a hundreds threads...

You're saying you're against my proposed because you're assuming these options are carved in stone but I don't see an obvious reason why they would be.

So, you propose Canon should license lenses they don't build? Are you forgetting that Canon is in the process of fleshing out their lineup and that'll another few years? So, according to your proposal, the following would be possible:
Tamrom gets a license for the 30-150mm F2.8-4 to be released on the RF mount. In 2025, Canon decides they'll put an RF 30-150mm F2.8-4 so they discontinue Tamrons license? That would makes for neither party.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Honestly, what answer do you expect? There is no statement from Sigma itself and their CEO´s probably told everybody to shut the ****** until they've figured things out on their own or successfully negotiate with Canon. So, you won't get an answer that you can count on.

Furthermore, I visited the photokina in 2019 and the Sigma hostesses (or workers) did not know squad about their lenses. They had the Sigma 200-500mm F2.8 EX DG on display and when asked by someone (not me) why it's so expensive the first hostess said: "well, it's very big, bigger than most lenses" The second one, which the asking visitor called over, said: "I think it works in the dark, but I´m not sure".

So, I am looking forward to what response you'll get. Unfortunately, I can't go myself (would love though).

I hope the hostesses were at least hot . I also saw the Sigma 200-500 at Photokina, but the line was too long and I was already exhausted. I hope Photokina will come back. Photopia was quite tiny, but at least I had the chance to test the R3 and the Sony A1 there. The guy at the Canon stand was surprised that O was able to get a sharp handheld indoor shot at 1/30 sec with the RF 800 f/11.